Belmora LLC. V. Bayer Consumer Care AG 84 F. Supp. 3d 490 (E.D. Va. 2015)
By William Stuart
Belmora is a United States based seller of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, including a pain relief product called FLANAX. Belmora applied for trademark protection for FLANAX in 2003, and in 2004 the application was published to allow others to oppose the registration of the FLANAX mark. Belmora had priority over the registration of the FLANAX mark in the U.S. because it was the first to use it in interstate commerce, starting on March 1, 2004.
View PDF – Stuart – Belmora LLC. V Bayer Consumer Care
Bikram’s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC 803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015)
By Kelcey Phillips
Bikram Choudhury, founder of Bikram’s Yoga College of India (“Choudhury”), moved from India to Beverly Hills, California in 1971 and quickly became a “central figure” in yoga. Choudhury began his study of the practice of yoga at the age of four, and learned an abundance of traditional poses that date back thousands of years. Following his studies, Choudhury developed a yoga sequence that included two breathing exercises and twenty-six yoga poses (“the Sequence”). He arranged the Sequence in a specific order and the Sequence was performed over ninety minutes with the guidance of instructions (the “Dialogue”) in a room heated to 105 degrees Fahrenheit. The Sequence was developed by Choudhury after years of research and medical measurements, and was intended to provide mental, physical, and overall health benefits. After opening his own studio, the Sequence quickly gained popularity.
View PDF – Phillips – Bikram’s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015)
By Nicolas Neilsen
This case centers on liability for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Section 271 imposes liability upon any party who “actively induces infringement of a patent”‘ Plaintiff-Petitioner Commil USA, LLC, (“Commil”) is the patent holder of patent no. 6,430,395 (“patent”) for a method which implements faster and more reliable communications between various electronic devices, by way of short-range wireless networks. Defendant-Respondent Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) produces and sells similar wireless networking equipment. In 2007, Commil brought this action against Cisco, alleging both direct and induced infringement. The direct infringement claim stemmed from Cisco’s development and use of networking equipment that allegedly directly infringed Commil’s patent. Commit also alleged that Cisco induced others to infringe the patent when it sold the infringing equipment to other users.
View PDF – Neilsen – Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Name.Space, Inc. v. Internet Corporation For Assigned Names & Numbers 795 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2015)
By Matthew Elmaraghi
Plaintiff-Appellant, name.space, applied for top level internet domain name from defendant-appellee, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). As a result of being denied approval, name.space brought suit against ICANN asserting anti-competitive behavior under the Sherman Act, Lanham Act, and California statue.
View PDF – Elmaraghi – Name.Space, Inc. v. Internet Corporation For Assigned Names & Numbers
Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 804 F. 3d 930 (9th Cir. 2015)
By Ryan M. Herrera
Multi Time Machine, Inc. (“MTM”), a manufacturer of military style
watches, brought a claim against Amazon.com (“Amazon”) alleging that the search term “MTM Special Ops” on Amazon’s website resulted in a likelihood of consumer confusion, therefore causing trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act. In an effort to preserve their reputation as an exclusive watch brand, MTM does not sell watches through Amazon, but instead sells watches directly to consumers. Because MTM also prohibits its retailers from selling through Amazon, MTM watches are unavailable on Amazon’s website. MTM has a federally registered trademark for “MTM Special Ops.”
View PDF – Herrera – Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Baldwin v. EMI Feist Catalog, Inc. 805 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir. 2015)
By Alysha Zapata
This matter is based on a dispute regarding the copyright duration
and termination notices affecting the famous musical composition “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town” written by J. Fred Coots and Haven Gillespie. Plaintiff-appellants in this case are J. Fred Coots’ statutory heirs: Gloria Coots Baldwin, Patricia Bergdahl, and Christine Palmitessa. Their rights to bring this action before the United States District Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit derive from the 1976 Copyright Act passed by Congress that grants authors and their statutory heirs the right to terminate previously made grants of copyright. The heirs sought to bring a declaratory action
against defendant-appellee, Leo Feist, Inc. (“Feist”), EMI’s predecessor.
View PDF – Zapata – Baldwin v. EMI Feist Catalog, Inc.